Stats

Friends

Recent Comments

No, the UN does not "admit it." The claim that climate change is a hoax is a hoax, concocted by industries & investors whose cash is threaten by the remedies, and spread daily in comment threads by obedient, paranoid fruitcakes.

Which facts did she get wrong, John? She reports what the organization says it's about. Did she get that wrong? Please support your charge with facts. OH, WAIT! Because "climate change" is mentioned, you believe she has a journalistic obligation to include reference to the tiny minority of curiously funded, illogical and laughably unscientific ramblings of reports that global warming is a hoax that have been seized upon by nutbags as though they represented a reasonable challenge to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of serious, peer-reviewed research. Because it's far more likely that 97% of the world's climate scientists, nearly all of whom will make exactly the same money whichever way they come down on this question, are all part of a vast conspiracy than that a handful of unscientists bribed by the energy industry are spreading unsupported counterevidence given legitimacy by idiots who spend their days regurgitating the lie in comment threads.

There are three other shows running right now at the local small professional theaters:

Annapurna: Two actors, one is making her Jobsite debut and has been little seen on local stages for many years. New factor: 50% (And while he's better known, the other actor in Annapurna has not been seen on stage for several years.)
Ain't Misbehavin': Five actors, one who is well-known locally (Tia). New factor: 80%
In the Heights: 12 actors, 2-3 are known locally. New factor: 75%

BTW:
Jobsite's next show: Six actors, two making their Jobsite debuts. New factor: 33%
American Stage's next show: Two actors, both new to Tampa Bay audiences. New factor: 100%

As for Betrayal, you're right, the faces are familiar to regular theatregoers. Then again, this is Emilia Sargent's first show in two years. The plain fact is that every theatre in town is showing new faces all the time. You seem not to be able to notice them.

Your oft-repeated charge is provably false. If you'd come out from behind your rotating aliases, we could assess your situation, figure out how this chip got on your shoulder, and maybe help you. Failing that, there's nothing anybody can do. You are nursing a delusion, and it's a shame you have to feel so angry about something that's not even true. You should find something else to be angry about, something actual. I'll join you.

I do not understand how an institution whose very survival depends on promoting the principle that higher education leads to higher income (above and beyond recovery of the student debt incurred to attain it) can pay its adjunct faculty so little as to disprove its own dictum. Walk the talk, USF. Someday prospective students are going to start doing the math on advanced degrees, comparing adjunct wages (now that tenure is a virtual pipe dream) to the debt they'll take on to qualify, and discover that academic achievement, no matter its intrinsic value, is a bad deal not worth pursuing. Unless you intend to fix that.

Tonight marks the first of a whopping 36 meetings in which county leaders, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit and city leaders from Tampa, Temple Terrace and Plant City will force themselves to pretend to listen to residents so they can claim to have done their due diligence when they later go off and do whatever it was they had planned to do from the beginning.

God save me from people who choose where to live based not on the character of the community, but on the investment value. As a longtime SH resident and homeowner, I have no desire whatsoever to see SH turn into Hyde Park. There are things that matter more than how big a score you can make when you flip your house, and I have trouble seeing how the neighborhood is improved by increasing the concentration of money-grubbing yuppie douchebags. Diversity is part of what makes SH a great place to live (for people who care about things besides money and style), and the first thing these twits will do is try to "gentrify" the place, to get better bang for their buck at the cost of the neighborhood's soul.

SH should be a place that welcomes people from all walks of life, but these hip investor residents will try to push out everyone who's not like them. To better their "opportunity."

... and to add to the previous observations, the negative judgment against "plays in which a few actors portray a great many" seems somewhat arbitrary, given the abundant praise in these pages for "Around the World in 80 Days," "An Iliad" and others. It's fine to ding plays you didn't enjoy, but to claim you are dinging them for the use of a "trope" you sometimes enjoy seems disingenuous. It would suggest that your issue isn't really the trope, but the merit of the play in question, irregardless (as we say in Boston) of the convention, and that should be the focus of the evaluation. (This trope is hardly new, as small bands of actors have been putting on plays with doubling and tripling of characters for millennia.) And Oh My, in a day when audiences embrace thriftily produced independent film and indie music, the preoccupation (sometimes inaccurate) with questions of budget always mystifies me. Intimate theatre produced in small houses where the maximum potential ticket revenue is limited will always cut corners on production values, here, in NYC and in London. It's actually part of the charm of small theatre, part of what attracts audiences who care more about the script, acting and story than whether a helicopter will be winched in from the flyspace. Were production budget really such a valid audience consideration, no plays would be produced in Tampa other than those one can see in Morsani Hall, no ticket would cost less than $100, and live theatre would become the elites-only art form it has long been in danger of becoming. Small theatres with low ticket prices are the only thing standing in the way of that eventuality, and they should be celebrated for that, not spanked for it. (And it must be pointed out: If budget = quality, there would be no Creative Loafing in a city with two daily newspapers.) The issue is not how much money was spent, or why. The (only) issue is whether the audience felt its time and money were well spent. It's absolutely the critic's duty to say when he/she feels it was not. But the production cost of the show is not as relevant to that question as these reviews sometimes reflect.